by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 15, 2007
All Rights Reserved.

cting like he did nothing wrong, Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales plans to tell the Senate Judiciary committee April 17 he has “nothing to hide” in the Justice Department's controversial firing of eight U.S. attorneys in Dec. 2006. That seems ironic when considering White House claims of losing “millions” of e-mails, many related to the U.S. attorney affair. More excuses prompted Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) to accuse the White House of fibbing. Gearing up for testimony, Gonzales has a lot of explaining to do why he previously told the media he had nothing to do with the firings, despite testimony of his former chief of staff Kyle Sampson, claiming he was intimately involved. Gonzales faces an uphill battle trying reconcile past inconsistencies and convince his ordinarily sympathetic GOP colleagues that he should be given a second chance.

      Floating a trial balloon two days before his testimony, Gonzales said, “I have nothing to hide,” failing to recognize that the “I did nothing wrong” defense, won't cut it with already skeptical senators, including those from his own party. Apologizing for mishandling the case won't undo the inescapable fact that Gonzales allowed the White House to manipulate its way to fire independently-minded U.S. attorneys. There's no getting around how President George W. Bush's deputy chief of staff and senior strategist Karl Rove and personal counsel Harriet Miers targeted certain U.S. attorneys because of questionable loyalty. Whether specific federal prosecutors were fired to obstruct investigations in GOP corruption is anyone's guess. When Gonzales says “nothing improper” occurred, that's not the ethical bar expected from the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

      White House and Justice Department officials make much ado about the fact that U.S. attorneys “serve at the pleasure of the president.” While that's technically true, it's not the role of the White House to interfere with Justice Department. Officials, like Rove, can't decide to fire and place a personally groomed GOP operative in the U.S. attorney office in Littlerock, Ark., replacing Bud Cummins with his friend Timothy Griffin. While it's not illegal to do so, it violates every known ethical principle regarding conflicts-of-interest. “Those statements are very conclusory,” said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the highest-ranking GOP member on the Judiciary Committee. “He's got a steep hill to climb. He's going to be successful only if he deals with facts,” expecting Gonzales to explain the factual basis why he fired and replaced eight otherwise competent federal prosecutors

      Gonzales can't go before the Judiciary Committee arguing and say “nothing improper” was done. He must explain his bouts of amnesia and shifting stories regarding his role in the firings. “He needs to explain what he did and why he did it,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a partisan Judiciary Committee member who frequently sides with the White House. Judiciary Committee Republicans have followed White House talking points that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and that Gonzales “did nothing wrong.” Although all U.S. attorneys were Bush appointees, White House officials questioned their loyalty to the president. Justice Department officials have said that all federal prosecutors were fired for cause, namely, substandard performance, the legitimate reason for terminations. Replacing U.S. attorneys with Bush loyalists is not an acceptable reason.

      When Gonzales faces the Judiciary Committee Tuesday, partisan politics will prevail. Republicans will try to clarify inconsistencies in Gonzales prior testimony, establishing nothing improper took place. “There are three or four different versions of his role in this, and he needs to bring clarity to what he did and why he did it,” said Graham, whose focus will be off the political motives for the firings. Graham and other GOP members will try to explain Gonzales's hazy memory and rehabilitate his tainted credibility. Democratic members, like Leahy, will try to establish a link between the White House and Justice Department decisions, and how Gonzales was in the loop. Justice Department ethics requires the White House to back off from heavy-handed influence. By all accounts, with Gonzales fully involved, the White House orchestrated the firing of all eight U.S. attorneys.

      Facing the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales will try to explain that he did “nothing wrong” and has “nothing to hide.” Allowing the White House to dictate the firings, Gonzales didn't show the autonomy needed administer the Justice Department. Going back to Bush's days in Texas, Gonzales proved more loyalty to Bush than the U.S. Constitution. “The No. 1 question is, is he capable of administering the Department of Justice, did he have enough hands-on to know what's happening? Can he explain why these individuals were asked to resign and justify the reasons for doing so?” asked Specter, not certain whether Gonzales would survive. While the White House still supports Gonzales, growing numbers of senators believe he acted too partisan, approving terminations of eight competent federal prosecutors. Gonzales must clarify to whom he swore his loyalty.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.